BENCH AT JAIPUR v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Intelligence Officer, Goods And

: Mr. Akshaya Bharadwaj with Mr. Ajay Singh (counsel for DGGI) Mr. Kinshuk Jain with Mr. Saurabh Jain and Mr. Jai Upadhyay HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 07/08/2025 Order

1. Instant bail application of petitioner accused Gulam Fareed is filed under Section 483 of BNSS in a matter arising out of complaint No. DGGI/ INT/ INTL/ 183/ 2025-GR.1-0/O ADG- [2025:RJ-JP:32021] (2 of 10) [CRLMB-5378/2025] DGGI-ZU-Jaipur dated 19.02.2025 for the offence under Section 132(1) of CGST Act, 2017.

2. Instant bail application of petitioner accused Yash Chandani is filed under Section 483 of BNSS in a matter arising out of complaint No.DGGI/INV/GST/366/2025-Grl-0/O ADJ-DGGI- ZU-Jaipur dated 19.02.2025 for the offence under Section 132(1)(a)(f)(h)(l) of CGST Act, 2017.

3. Since both the bail applications relate to common question of law in identical facts, therefore, we are considering the bail applications with common order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on basis of an intelligence input, an investigation was initiated by CGST authorities and during investigation, came to know that there was a large scale evasion of GST during course of business transaction filed a complaint against petitioners. He further submitted that during course of investigation, the Department has focus investigation around other individuals and not on any of the petitioner(s) which is sufficient to indicate that these petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. He further referred the provision of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (for short ‘the GCST Act, 2017’) and submitted that offence of evasion upto ₹5,00,000,00/- is bailable and non-cognizable and beyond ₹5,00,000,00/- is non-bailable and cognizable. He further submitted that the investigation relating to present petitioners is complete and complaint has already been filed on basis of non-admissible and non-legal evidence before the trial Court. He further submitted that in case of Vineet Jain [2025:RJ-JP:32021] (3 of 10) [CRLMB-5378/2025] Vs. Union of India : Criminal Appeal No.2269/2025 (order dated 28.04.2025), Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail in an identical set of facts, where maximum punishment is 5 years. He further submitted that trial will take long time and offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner accused Gulam Fareed has submitted that this petitioner is not having any clandestine deal with three individuals Manoj, Naveen Yadav and Rajeev Yadav, who were named as mastermind behind the evasion of CGST in dealing with iron scrap. He further referred the material on record and submitted that the present petitioner is arrayed as an accused only on ground that he is associated with M/s Apollo Steels and M/s Aravali Steels and these firms have conspired in unauthorized supply of iron scrap and other goods which resulted in loss of revenue of GST to the tune of ₹13,61,00,000/-. He further submitted that record clearly indicate that Ms/ Apollo Steels is owned by Mohammad Noor Makkar and not by the present petitioner. He further submitted that M/s Aravali Steels was owned by the petitioner accused and a business relation between said firms is considered as an offence by the Department which is contrary to settled proposition of law. He further submitted that except the WhatsApp chat and messages, no other document is available on record to show that petitioner accused is involved in tax evasion as alleged by the Department. [2025:RJ-JP:32021] (4 of 10) [CRLMB-5378/2025]

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Yash Chandani has submitted that as per department, the present petitioner is proprietor of Yash Trading Company, who allegedly involved in clandestine purchase and supply of iron scrap goods without bills and tax receipt. He further submitted that the investigation of intelligence input was against three other masterminds and not against present petitioner. He further submitted that after investigation against the petitioner, a complaint is already filed and there is no evidence to show that this petitioner accused has committed an offence. At last, he submitted that this petitioner accused is in custody since 19.02.2025 and trial will take time.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments in case of Common Cause and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. : (2017) 11 SCC 731, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. V.C. Shukla : (1998) 3 SCC 410, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Chitra Ramkrishna : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1168, Suresh Budharmal Kalani @ Pappu Kalani Vs. State of Maharashtra : (1998) 7 SCC 337, A. Tajudeen Vs. Union of India : (2015) 4 SCC 435, Ratnambar Kaushik Vs. Union of India : (2023) 2 SCC 621 and Ashutosh Garg Vs. Union of India : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8740/2024 (Order dated

26.07.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India). [2025:RJ-JP:32021] (5 of 10) [CRLMB-5378/2025]

8. He further referred order dated dated 20.04.2024 in Bail Application No.3898/2024 Ehsaan Ali Sherani Vs. Union of India, Rajesh Goyal Vs. Union of India : Bail Application No. 16113/2024 (order dated

18.03.2025), Raman Bhuraria Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2023 SCC Online Delhi 657, Delhi International Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Adeel Feroze and Ors. : 2024 SCC OnLine Delhi 4576, Chitra Ramkrishna Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) through the Investigating Officer: 2022 SCC OnLine Delhi 3124 and submitted that in a case before this Hon’ble Court the petitioners accused are already in custody and they have already remained in custody for few months and investigation is complete and they are no more required by the Agency for any investigation and there is no likelihood that any prosecution evidence will be tempered by them, therefore, they are entitled to be released on bail.

9. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsels appearing for the Department. They submitted that the petitioners are part of a large network of tax evader and in a systematic manner, they have evading CGST in connivance and conspiracy with other persons. He further submitted that this is a case where statements of accused were recorded and same is admissible under the law which indicate evasion by them. He further submitted that the Department has collected sufficient evidence to show that these petitioners have caused a huge loss to the State exchequer, which is used for welfare of the country. He further submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:32021] (6 of 10) [CRLMB-5378/2025] this is a white collar crime and both petitioners are actively indulge in tax evasion in clandestine manner and same is proved from the material available on record.

10. Learned counsels further referred bail order dated

18.06.2025 in Bail Application No.4836/2025 Ankit Bansal Vs. Union of India after considering the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, the bail application was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. They further referred bail order dated 08.08.2024 in case of Dheeraj Singhal Vs. Union of India : S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3486/2024 and submitted that even bail was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also referred bail order dated 07.09.2021 passed in case of Lalit Goyal Vs. Union of India which was dismissed twice by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 26.08.2022. He also referred judgment in case of Sandeep Goyal Vs. Union of India wherein bail was dismissed by this Court and upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He further referred bail order in case of Basudev Mittal Vs. Union of India passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court and further upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court. He particularly pointed out that on ground of parity or any other, a petitioner cannot claim bail rather he has to plead his own case and show to the Court that he is entitled to bail. He further referred judgment in cases of Naresh J. Sukhwani Vs. Union of India : 1995(4) Suppl. SCC 663, Radhika Agarwal Vs. Union of India : Writ Petition (Criminal) No.366 of [2025:RJ-JP:32021] (7 of 10) [CRLMB-5378/2025] 2018, Surjeet Singh Chabra Vs. Union of India : (1997) 1 SCC 508, Virupakshappa Gauda Vs. State of Karnataka : (2017) 5 SCC 406, State of Tamil Nadu Vs. R. Vasanthi Stanley : (2016) 1 SCC 376, Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI : (2013) 7 SCC 439, State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal : (1987) 2 SCC 364, (2013) 7 SCC 466 Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, SFIO Vs. Nittin Johari : (2019) 9 SCC 165, Tarun Kumar Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : SLP (Crl.) No.9431/2023 and Brijesh Yadav Va. State of Rajasthan : 2016 SCC OnLine Raj. 2311.

11. Learned counsel has further referred order dated 12.09.2024 Ashish Kumar Vs. Union of India which was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21.01.2025 wherein also bail was dismissed.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered judgments as referred by learned counsel for the parties. For sake of brevity, we are not discussing any detail about the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred by learned counsel for the parties but we have considered the judgment as referred by both the parties.

13. The facts of the case relating to tax evasion and Section 132 of the CGST, 2017 lays down the list of criminal offence under the Act for which offenders may be criminally prosecuted as well as arrested. The Section also categorize the offence into bailable and non-bailable on basis of value of tax evasion. [2025:RJ-JP:32021] (8 of 10) [CRLMB-5378/2025]

14. CBIC has issued detailed instruction vide instruction No.2/2022-23 dated 07.08.2022 regarding bail in relation to offences punishable under the CGST Act after following judgment in case of Siddharth Vs. State of UP and Anr. : (2022) 1 SCC 676 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

15. Hon’ble Supreme Court considered law relating to bail in economic offence in case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI : 2013 (7) SCC 439 and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement : (2019) 9 SCC 24. Considering the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the parties, the relevant consideration for grant of bail in such cases includes (i) nature and gravity of accusation made by the petitioner; (ii) nature of evidence collected by prosecuting agency in support of accusation; (iii) character and criminal antecedents of petitioner; (iv) severity of punishment and legal provision under the Act; (v) chance of fleeing of petitioner from the jurisdiction; or ensuring presence at the trial; (vi) chances that witnesses being influenced or tempering of evidence; (vii) larger interest of society and impact of grant of bail on society as a whole.

16. Learned counsel for both the parties have filed orders relating to grant of bail by this Court and also by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Similarly, learned counsel for the respondent-non-petitioner-Department have also submitted orders whereby bail in identical nature of cases were dismissed by this Court and the order was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The material on record is relevant [2025:RJ-JP:32021] (9 of 10) [CRLMB-5378/2025] consideration for grant of bail, therefore, each case itself has its own merit.

17. In case of petitioner Gulam Fareed, the Department has found that M/s Aravali Steels and Ms/ Apollo Steels, both were operated by present petitioner accused and in a systematic manner, he transferred goods without legal documents (including e-way bill) and after successful transfer to the destination, the evidence is also destroyed. The relevant material collected by the Department clearly shows that this petitioner has evaded tax to the tune of ₹13,61,76,573/- and it is a huge amount. The Department has collected electronic evidence and same is admissible under the BSA, 2023 subject to certain qualifications.

18. Petitioner accused Yash Chandani is associated with M/s Yash Trading Company involved in purchase and supply of iron scrap goods without bills and tax receipt. The Department has collected material to show that the petitioner accused Yash Chandani is associated with operation of Yash Trading Company. The Department has further collected electronic evidence and other material to show that the petitioner is only person who evaded the tax. The Department has submitted detailed list of documents both electronic and otherwise to establish charge against the petitioner-accused. As per allegation, fake invoices and bills were also prepared by Yash Chandani. The Department has also submitted evidence relating to M/s Mahaveer Trading Company and involvement of other persons. The total loss estimated was ₹58.46 crores but involvement of present petitioners is [2025:RJ-JP:32021] (10 of 10) [CRLMB-5378/2025] individually assessed for causing loss to the tune of ₹8,33,20,465/-.

19. Having considered the material available on record, I am of considered view that the present petitioners are involved in a systematic network to evade tax with help of others. Needless to say that the collection of tax is lifeline of every country and evasion of tax amounts to denial of opportunity of growth to citizens of the nation, who need government support for development.

20. Thus looking to seriousness of the offence and supporting evidence collected by the Department, I am of the considered view that both the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.

21. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the bail applications preferred by the petitioners accused Gulam Fareed and Yash Chandani under Section 483 BNSS are hereby dismissed. MR/14-15 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J